WRITTEN QUESTION E-0915/02 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Construction of the Acropolis Museum.
Date: 2002-04-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central Greece, European Regional Development Fund, archaeology, building industry, co-financing, cultural heritage, fraud, invitation to tender, museum

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/105

(2002/C 277 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0904/02

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: VAT rates for purchases by visually-disabled people

(25 March 2002)

For the visually disabled, in the United Kingdom at least, computer software and CCTV equipment are
zero-rated for Value Added Tax. Motorised contour beds are zero-rated, or incur VAT, depending on the
medical condition of the purchaser. But computer hardware incurs VAT for all categories of people,
whether having perfect eyesight or not.

What is the comparative situation in the other Member States?

Does the Commission agree that visually-disabled people throughout the European Union should enjoy
zero-rating for both hardware and software?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2002)

Under current Community VAT legislation, the standard VAT rate should apply to computer software and
hardware. Member States may, however, apply a reduced rate under category 4 of Annex H of the Sixth
VAT Directive 77/388/EEC (1) for ‘Medical equipment, aids and other appliances normally intended to
alleviate or treat disability, for the exclusive personal use of the disabled, including the repair of such
goods, and children’s car seats.’ Member States may therefore allocate a reduced VAT rate of no less than
5 % to these goods and services. It is doubtful that computer software and hardware will generally fall
under this category, although a specific item such as a Braille keyboard and its related software could be
covered. Closed circuit television (CCTV) would not be covered.

Moreover, under the terms of Article 28(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive, only the Member States which, on
1 January 1991, applied ‘zero rates’, which are in fact exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the
preceding stage, or reduced rates, to goods or services not mentioned in Annex H, may continue to apply
such rates for a further transitional period.

The reason for this is that the zero rate is an exception to the normal rules which foresee that the standard
VAT rate should apply to any taxable transaction, independently of the nature of the purchaser, as a
general consumption tax, to avoid distortion of competition.

Current Community legislation does not make it possible to extend the scope of the zero rate.

As for the comparative situation in the other Member States, the Commission is collecting the information
requested. It will communicate its findings directly to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes > Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145,
13.6.1977, Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, OJ L 15,
17.1.2002, Annex H sets a list of supplies of goods and services which may be subject to reduced rates of VAT.

(2002/C 277 E/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0915/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Construction of the Acropolis Museum

(5 April 2002)

According to reports in the Greek press, there is considerable opposition in Greece to the Ministry of
Culture’s decision to build the Acropolis Museum at the Makriyannis site. It will be recalled that this
project has been at the planning stage for the last 25 years (sic!) and that four competitions have been held

C 277 E/106

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

since 1976 (the first two in 1976 and 1979 were national, the other two international competitions) and
still the matter is still unresolved. There are associations such as the Citizens’ Movement that are opposed
to the work on the grounds that the site earmarked for the purpose is an archaeological site where
excavations have not yet been completed, as the finds in the area during recent work on the Athens
Underground show.

A further problem is caused by the fact that one of the requirements in the recent competition is that
visitors must be able to see the Parthenon sculptures in the new museum and the Parthenon itself on the
Acropolis at the same time. The only way to achieve this is to raise the museum five metres above the
listed von Weiler building which is located in the area and ignore all the restrictions imposed on this area
in order to protect the Acropolis site. Under the exceptions allowed in the invitation to tender, the south
side of the Museum would be 40 metres high, i.e. between 15 and 20 metres higher than the blocks of
flats in the area, and would be an eyesore in this historic site.

However, the fourth competition in a row has also caused problems. After the failure to hold the third
competition (an open international competition which failed owing to the opposition of scientific bodies
and neighbours) the Ministry of Culture held the fourth competition which, as the press commented, was
so lacking in transparency that many thought the contract was awarded directly to the winners. It should
be pointed out that the winner of the competition was one of 20 architects and academics from all over
the world who had written a letter five years ago to the Greek Government calling on it to reconsider its
decision and reverse its decision to build a large museum at the Makyriannis site.

Is the Commission aware of the above issue, and what is its position? Is it directly or indirectly funding
(through the CSF or Community initiatives and programmes) the construction of the museum in question?
Are the Greek authorities obliged to notify it about all the stages of the project and the choices they make?
Does it intend to look into the entire matter, and what measures does it intend to take to clarify this
situation completely?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Within the Community support framework for Greece during the programming period 2000-2006, the
European Regional Development Fund co-finances structural
In
particular, the operational programme (OP) on culture aims, amongst other things, to improve the building
and technological infrastructure in existing museums as well as to create new ones including the Acropolis
museum.

interventions in the cultural sector.

The Commission is informed that an invitation to tender concerning a study was published in August
2000 (restricted procedure following the Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the co-
ordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (1)). The contract awarded to a
consortium was signed in December 2001. In March 2002, the Central Archaeological Council approved
unanimously the preliminary design and models submitted to it by the consortium. As such,
the
completion of the study is at its final stage.

Following the information received from the Greek authorities, the OP managing authority has not yet
approved the Acropolis museum project. Nevertheless, in application of the principle of subsidiarity, the
responsibility for the actions to be carried out
the
implementation of the project must be done in accordance with the legislation in force, and the managing
authority is responsible for the supervision and follow up of the project.

lies entirely with the Member State. Clearly,

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2002/C 277 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/02

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Beef and live cattle exports to the Middle East and North Africa

Would the Commission let me know what proportion of the Community’s exports of cattle to the Middle
East and North Africa are in the form of meat and what proportion are exported as live animals?